If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Not if your are a latina woman and see more clearly than a white man.......

Views and opinions expressed herein by Badbullgator do not necessarily represent the policies or position of RTF. RTF and all of it's subsidiaries can not be held liable for the off centered humor and politically incorrect comments of the author.
Corey Burke

But Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., said "it would be wrong" to use the decision to criticize Sotomayor and that her panel's decision exhibited "judicial restraint."

He said the Supreme Court's ruling is "likely to result in cutbacks on important protections for American families."

"This is a cramped decision that threatens to erode these protections and to harm the efforts of state and local governments that want to build the most qualified workforces," Leahy said in a statement.

Does Leahy even know what this case is about. Important protections for american families? How is giving a leg up to someone not as qualified for the job as another person protection for the american family. The most qualified workforce past the test. Sorry the black firefighters weren't as qualified but that is not the problem of the firefighters that were qualified and past the test.

affirmative action bull**** regards.

The Supreme Court is effectively reversing prior decisions supporting affirmative action proving, yet again, how laws can be rewritten by a 5 to 4 vote. Sometimes I agree with such decisions, sometimes I don't. I suspect the same is true for each of us. At the appellate level judges should conform as closely as possible to precedent. The original decision supported by Sotomayor did that. A new precedent has now been created that will affect a variety of decisions until it is reaffirmed or overturned in the future. If the next case happens before Obama replaces one of the current conservatives, the decision will be overturned. If a more conservative president acts to preserve or enlarge the current conservative majority, the precedent will stand and be reinforced.

Does Leahy even know what this case is about. Important protections for american families? How is giving a leg up to someone not as qualified for the job as another person protection for the american family. The most qualified workforce past the test. Sorry the black firefighters weren't as qualified but that is not the problem of the firefighters that were qualified and past the test.

affirmative action bull**** regards.

Affirmative Action = Legalized Discrimination

BTW, Leahy is just another idiot pretending to serve in DC.

The freedom to discriminate is essential to personal Liberty. Life in a free country is about being free to make choices based on your own criteria rather then one mandate by the government...Libertarian blogger

The Supreme Court is effectively reversing prior decisions supporting affirmative action proving, yet again, how laws can be rewritten by a 5 to 4 vote. Sometimes I agree with such decisions, sometimes I don't. I suspect the same is true for each of us. At the appellate level judges should conform as closely as possible to precedent. The original decision supported by Sotomayor did that. A new precedent has now been created that will affect a variety of decisions until it is reaffirmed or overturned in the future. If the next case happens before Obama replaces one of the current conservatives, the decision will be overturned. If a more conservative president acts to preserve or enlarge the current conservative majority, the precedent will stand and be reinforced.

Sounds like the court is writing a wrong that has been around to long.

This woman is a disgrace.
She (and "The Obama for nominating her) have made a mockery of the process.
She, like "The Obama," is a product of entitlements.
She has no business being on any bench what so ever, let alone the most prestigious judicial appointment in the land.
This is the DUMBING down of America at it's highest!!(lowest!!)

This is a tarnish and a stain on the SCOTUS in her just being nominated.
If appointed it will be one of, if not the greatest injustuce ever done to the SCOTUS.
She has NO credentials, no body of work and has been an astounding failure at what few decisions she has made!!

What a slap in the face to all of the people who have worked so hard (some more than 40 hours a week) to gain achievement in the field of law to appoint a person so woefully inept.

This woman is a disgrace.
She (and "The Obama for nominating her) have made a mockery of the process.
She, like "The Obama," is a product of entitlements.
She has no business being on any bench what so ever, let alone the most prestigious judicial appointment in the land.
This is the DUMBING down of America at it's highest!!(lowest!!)

This is a tarnish and a stain on the SCOTUS in her just being nominated.
If appointed it will be one of, if not the greatest injustuce ever done to the SCOTUS.
She has NO credentials, no body of work and has been an astounding failure at what few decisions she has made!!

What a slap in the face to all of the people who have worked so hard (some more than 40 hours a week) to gain achievement in the field of law to appoint a person so woefully inept.

My God, please, somebody do something!!

Those are some pretty grandiose statements to make with no statement of facts to back them up. Her record is certainly favorable compared to Alito, better than Thomas, and longer and more distinguished than Roberts. Her academic record may be one of if not the best among the justices on the court. Rehnquist's record prior to his appointment (principally a political hack), may have been one of the weakest in the history of the court and yet his attitude and intellect allowed him to perform very well even though I disagree with almost every political position he ever took.

Those are some pretty grandiose statements to make with no statement of facts to back them up. Her record is certainly favorable compared to Alito, better than Thomas, and longer and more distinguished than Roberts. Her academic record may be one of if not the best among the justices on the court. Rehnquist's record prior to his appointment (principally a political hack), may have been one of the weakest in the history of the court and yet his attitude and intellect allowed him to perform very well even though I disagree with almost every political position he ever took.

See the emboldened part?

I am talking about her record!
Not anyone elses.
If I have to post it here fior you, then you are not as up to speed as you would like us to think.
60% failure rate?
May be good in baseball, but not on the bench.
In regard to her body of work, there isn't much to show, therefore I question her experience.
In regard to her being a product of entitlements?
Please!!

Show me where I am wrong, and don't blame it on Bush or tell me about someone else.

I am talking about her record!
Not anyone elses.
If I have to post it here fior you, then you are not as up to speed as you would like us to think.
60% failure rate?
May be good in baseball, but not on the bench.
In regard to her body of work, there isn't much to show, therefore I question her experience.
In regard to her being a product of entitlements?
Please!!

Show me where I am wrong, and don't blame it on Bush or tell me about someone else.

The subject is Sotomayor.

60% failure rate? That is a gross manipulation of the numbers based on five appealed cases out of several hundred that she wrote or participated in of which three were overturned on appeal. In baseball, that would be the equivalent of judging a batting record based on how many times a batter hit a grand slam out of all the times they appeared at bat with the bases loaded. It might sound good, but it's not a very useful statistic. Second, being overturned on appeal is not equivalent to a failure, particularly when, as is true in the Fire fighter case, the court is modifying its own precedents in its actions. Alito had many more cases overturned on appeals than Sotomayor.

Her judicial record is certainly equivalent by any measure to many of the current justices on the court prior to their appointments. It is clearly more extensive than either our current of prior chief justices.

Affirmative action may or may not have been a factor in Sotomayor's admission to Princeton. It was not a factor in awarding her the Pyne Prize which is Princeton's highest honor for academic excellence. Her academic record at Princeton was superior to that of Alito who graduated a few years earlier.

again Jeff the court was just righting a long time wrong and if Sotomayor wasn't so wrapped up in race she would be able to see that and have made a better decision. The fact that there was ever a ruling to set a precedent like this is a disgusting chapter in our history imo.